# Why PDF-via-PS has heavier font than direct PDF? [duplicate]

This question already has an answer here:

I compile the same tex using two commands:

latexmk --pvc --pdfps ./main.tex


and

latexmk --pvc --pdf ./main.tex


Then view both pdf files using evince, at the same scale (170%). The result using --pdfps (on the left) has heavier font that the result using --pdf (on the right):

Do you know why?

Update:
Here comes a minimal example:

$cat main.tex \documentclass{article} \usepackage{amsthm} \usepackage{amsfonts} \usepackage{amsmath} \usepackage{amssymb} \title{Compare} \begin{document} \maketitle $$a_\textit{ivanov} \wedge b_\mathit{sidorov} \rightarrow \text{petrov}^{2^{x}}$$ \end{document}  Running pdffonts gives: $ pdffonts ./pdf.pdf
name                                 type              encoding         emb sub uni object ID
------------------------------------ ----------------- ---------------- --- --- --- ---------
JADGUW+CMR17                         Type 1            Builtin          yes yes no       4  0
GFYLUX+CMR12                         Type 1            Builtin          yes yes no       5  0
IEHANU+CMMI10                        Type 1            Builtin          yes yes no       6  0
WLJBIP+CMTI7                         Type 1            Builtin          yes yes no       7  0
GHNOGE+CMSY10                        Type 1            Builtin          yes yes no       8  0
UWWUVN+CMR10                         Type 1            Builtin          yes yes no       9  0
RKDUWA+CMR7                          Type 1            Builtin          yes yes no      10  0
EUVFVQ+CMMI5                         Type 1            Builtin          yes yes no      11  0

\$ pdffonts ./ps.pdf
name                                 type              encoding         emb sub uni object ID
------------------------------------ ----------------- ---------------- --- --- --- ---------
RRWQTJ+CMMI5                         Type 1C           WinAnsi          yes yes no      22  0
EBFDMR+CMR7                          Type 1C           WinAnsi          yes yes no      20  0
AFJYHC+CMR10                         Type 1C           WinAnsi          yes yes no      18  0
ILWBCN+CMSY10                        Type 1C           Custom           yes yes no      16  0
OFQOVE+CMTI7                         Type 1C           WinAnsi          yes yes no      14  0
IEOASN+CMMI10                        Type 1C           WinAnsi          yes yes no      12  0
LWIAFV+CMR12                         Type 1C           WinAnsi          yes yes no      10  0
ZGILVG+CMR17                         Type 1C           WinAnsi          yes yes no       8  0


The --pdfps version uses Type 1C fonts, which may be the reason...

## marked as duplicate by Community♦Sep 11 '18 at 8:47

This question has been asked before and already has an answer. If those answers do not fully address your question, please ask a new question.

• what does the output of pdffonts utility report? – David Carlisle Sep 10 '18 at 15:39
• We probably need to know about which fonts you're using, please provide a minimal example. Also, have you checked which fonts are actually used in the two pdfs? (pdffonts on Linux can help) – daleif Sep 10 '18 at 15:41
• added no-so-minimal example and info about the fonts. The fonts type (type 1 vs type 1c) differs. Maybe that is the reason. – Ayrat Sep 10 '18 at 16:36
• Type 1C fonts can contain "better" hinting data which is more appropriate for low-resolution display devices like computer screens. You will probably find that if you zoom in, the differences disappear, and they also disappear if you print the files (assuming you have a modern printer, not an ancient low-resolution one!) – alephzero Sep 10 '18 at 18:08
• @alephzero perhaps make that an answer? – David Carlisle Sep 10 '18 at 19:04

## 1 Answer

I flagged my question as duplicate of the following: XeLaTeX font rendering tend to be slightly bolder compared to PDFlatex which has the excellent answer: https://tex.stackexchange.com/a/337122/18193

The comment by @alephzero helped to find this out, thanks! As @alephzero wrote, Type 1C is a (lossless) compacted version of Type 1 fonts, but with better "hinting" (hinting is used at low resolutions). The difference disappears, as predicted by @alephzero, at higher zoom (300%, no noticeable difference), and on the printed versions of the documents.

Also, my version of evince seems to have different rendering engines for Type 1 and Type 1C fonts (see the above answer link), with Type 1C rendered producing a bolder result. The above linked answer also noted that there is no noticeable difference since Ubuntu 16.10.

Also related questions and sources: